Asia

Thailand’s protests

Has Yingluck played her ace?

BY MID-AFTERNOON on December 9th, the leader of Thailand’s would-be revolution, Suthep Thaugsuban, was celebrating the capture of Bangkok’s government district from atop one of his supporters’ makeshift stages. Before him lay the prime minister’s office, shuttered and apparently empty, completely surrounded by over 100,000 of Mr Suthep's devoted followers. A few forlorn-looking soldiers were keeping guard at the gates; as agreed beforehand the protesters had not (yet) breached the perimeter. After a month of mounting protests, Mr Suthep had asked for a big turn-out for one last push to get rid of what he calls the “Thaksin regime”, and it seems that he got it.

The fiery Mr Suthep seemed intoxicated by it all. Whether he is any nearer to uprooting the Thaksin regime, however, is a different matter. Even before the thousands of protesters set off to occupy the government quarter this morning, the embattled prime minister, Yingluck Shinawatra (pictured), had taken the wind out of their sails by announcing that she was dissolving parliament and calling an election for February 2nd. As she said in a televised address, “Let the people decide the direction of the country and who the governing majority will be.”

In doing so she would appear to have given ground to the protesters, continuing her general policy of political appeasement. After all, she was elected with a large majority in parliament only two-and-a-half years ago—yet has now been forced to go back to the voters. But in fact calling a new election was always going to be her best move, as her Pheu Thai party is justifiably confident of winning. After all, the Pheu Thai party, or earlier incarnations of the party under the leadership of the former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, Ms Yingluck’s elder brother, have won all five general elections since 2001, and often by a big margin.

For however huge the crowds were in Bangkok today, they are certainly not an accurate indication of the mood across the whole of Thailand. The capital has always been a stronghold of the opposition Democrat Party. Out in the rural north, it’s a very different story. There Mr Thaksin and his party long ago captured the votes of the millions of relatively poor rice farmers, and they have been stacking up the parliamentary majorities for Mr Thaksin and his designated successors ever since. The opposition Democrat Party, by contrast, has a dismal record at the polls. It has never won an outright parliamentary majority in its long history, and last managed to cobble together a ruling parliamentary government after an election in the late 1990s.

Thus it’s elections that the opposition really fear, and that was evident today. On the streets Mr Suthep’s supporters, well aware of the electoral history and arithmetic, certainly weren’t celebrating Ms Yingluck’s decision to “let the people” decide what the government should be. For they know exactly what the people will decide—very likely more of the same.

Mr Suthep’s motley crew of acolytes and cheerleaders try to argue that somehow all of Mr Thaksin’s victories (in the various party guises) have been “bought” and that voters have been “bribed” by the promise of lavish public spending, to help poor rice farmers for instance. But there is almost no evidence that any of these elections were systematically bought or rigged in anyway. Indeed, the last election, certainly, was very well conducted by comparison with other recent elections in the South-East Asian region. Indeed, when pressed, one of Mr Suthep’s main advisers admitted to me that despite all the alleged vote-buying (which he produced no evidence for) the result was still “legitimate”. And the incontinent public spending programmes? In the West that’s called Keynesian economics.

Given all this, it is more than likely that the protesters will carry on with pressing Mr Suthep’s idea of setting up what he calls a “people’s council”, to supersede the government. They have asked for profound changes in the electoral system now to ensure “clean” elections, and that could give them an excuse not to participate in the election of February 2nd. But as with much else in Mr Suthep’s programme, how he might clean up the electoral system remains a mystery.

The Democrat Party will also have to decide how to respond. Their MPs resigned en masse on December 8th to join the protests (eight of their number, including Mr Suthep, did so a month ago to lead the demonstrations). Now they have to decide whether to throw in their lot with the protesters completely, or live up to their name, at least, and contest an election—which they will almost certainly loose.

Thus the only certainty is that calling this election is not going to make Ms Yingluck’s opponents suddenly melt away. They have other political calculations to make—and some of those should become clearer in the next few days.

Sweetie, every person angry with how the Economist covers their political ideology thinks the article has been written and published by their political enemy.
Sorry to say that the Shinawatras do not, in fact, own this newspaper.

Thailand's troubles may be one wave in a tide of instability sweeping the region. In addition to Thailand you have riots in Singapore, an election in Malaysia that many consider fraudulent, and decaying hereditary power structures.

King Bhumipol of Thailand and Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew are old and sick. King Bhumipol is respected and has arguably kept the country from civil war but the crown prince is universally despised. Malaysia's BN won a minority of the votes at the last election and is losing legitimacy even among Malays. Burma's junta will be replaced by The Lady as soon as the constitution crafted to exclude her is changed.

None of this would be a problem were it not for a lack of democratic mechanisms to enable a smooth transition of power from one elite to another in these countries. Yingluck won a clean election and will probably win the next one, but entrenched urban elites refuse to accept the will of the majority - they are not committed to democracy. The institution which should act the final guarantor of legitimacy and stability - an independent judiciary - is absent.

In Malaysia the most powerful party in the BN alliance, UMNO, routinely plays the Malay nationalist card to stoke fear of minority groups, despite these minorities making up 35% of the population. The final nail in BN's coffin will be when the Chinese and Indian parties in the BN decide to leave it, which cannot be far off.

Over these national upheavals hangs a global one - an aggressive and expansionist China. China has already claimed territory belonging to Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, India, Indonesia, Philippines and Brunei. This has the potential to upset the delicate political balance in the region - politics and race relations being intertwined.

Singapore and Malaysia's strategic position on the Malacca Straits - route of 30% of total world trade and 80% of China's oil imports - make these countries of particular interest to the PLA navy and their "Second Island Chain" objective. Although there is no suggestion that fifth-columnists are at work it would be suprising if China did not use every tool at it's disposal to diminish US control of the Straits.

Snowden's revelations that Singapore has been a member of the 5-eyes spying network and has been eavesdropping on Malaysia and Indonesia is unhelpful and makes ASEAN seem ineffectual at best and bogus at worst.

Class divisions aside, it is most simply understood as a conflict between two competing elites, each bent on the exercise of power and positioning themselves and their allies so each may most conveniently engage in the kleptocracy otherwise known as Thai governance. The struggle now is for the future. The Shinawatra clan is popular enough to become a de facto political dynasty now and for the foreseeable, and the traditional elites are trying to stop that, since they don't have a prayer of ever being elected again. While fairly elected, experience has shown that the Shinawatras exercise their political power through near authoritarianism--something like what we see in Hun Sen's Cambodia. Lots of talk of democracy during elections, but little real reform. Lip service paid to freedom and change, but in reality bureaucratic corruption and human rights abuses.
But the traditional elites are no prize either. Shinawatra's loyalty is absolute in the Northeast because his was the first regime to ever give those people medical services, electricity, better roads, loans to villages to aid in local development, etc. The traditionals couldn't care less about how these people fare, and that is certainly no secret. If they upend this government, it will have to be outside the electoral process, and that bodes ill for those outside their ruling circle.
Thailand needs change at the DNA level--better educational standards and investment, changing the sort of cultural values that mean looking the other way at public corruption--as long as you're one of those being dealt in on the game.
Chok dee on all that.

Democracy can't work if the winner of a majority is exploiting the country exclusively in his own interest, riding rough-shod over the minority. That's one main reason for the disappointing governance in many so-called democratic countries, and a reason to worry about polarized politics everywhere.

If voting is along tribal or regional lines, it can mean that a specific population group is forever excluded from power, and therefore tempted to defend its interest by non-democratic means. It seems that is what happens with the perpetually outvoted urbanized population around Bangkok, which incidentally also produces most of the country's GDP.

The only way out of the impasse will have to be an inclusive government. The Pheu Thai - after its inevitable win at the polls - must try to involve as many other factions as possible and avoid divisive policies, especially regarding the person of Mr. Thaksin.

And this clip is my evidence of vote buying in Nakorn Phanom. It always begins like this. Also for bribing people to come to protest whatsoever they want for the Redshirt camp. So may I ask the readers to stop claiming that Thaksin's and Yingluck's elections were clean? Five millions people showed up to protest Yingluck yesterday because of series of corruptions. The concept of BKK people didn't accept the majority vote is invalid. For me, if there was one vote buying, it was illegal and undemocratic.

'But there is almost no evidence that any of these elections were systematically bought or rigged in anyway'

I have seen vote buying made by Thaksin/Yingluck/Pheu Thai party several times with my own eyes. They offered the money for my vote too for Bt 1,000 or £20! I was disgusted by it and didn't take it. You know what? Things that foreign journalists haven't seen, it doesn't mean that it does not exist. There are numbers of Youtube clips to witness the vote buying made by the government. The Pheu Thai party has nothing to do with democratic process since the beginning. They are illegal. Has Thaksin bought/increased his shares in The Economist lately?

Yingluck's and Thakisin's election victories were never clean. At least in my neighbourhood, just outside Bangkok, one could witness vote buying from their PT party everywhere. Other format came with loans and other promises such as connections for building local facilities. I regard this action illegal just like many other millions of people. Therefore, PT party has nothing to do with contributing democracy. Who am I to say this? Businessman? BKK elite as the terms which are often used in western media? Not at all. Class war fare is irrelevant. The PM distorted the documents to be presented parlament + letting other MP swiping the ID cardes to vote yes no for each other + asking for the amnesty bill for her criminal brother. That was enough. It was again illegal. They must step down. What would the Brits do if David Cameron did the same?

Keynesian economics does not have the middle man taking out the commission. It annoys me to no end when the Western journals simplify the situation this way. I truly believe that majority of the protestors who came out do not have problem with having Yingluck's administration run the country, as evident in the past two and a half years. The issue is the blatant corruption that Yingluck's administration conducts/has conducted/will be conducting. All is fine with those lavish spending plans - maybe we need them, well, at least the majority of the people said they wanted them in the last election. And that's acceptable to everyone. But the $6.7 trillion mega project that perhaps will create a few more world billionaires is what the protestors cannot accept. There is NO balance of power - everyone was bought including justice system. This is what's not ok. It's not a problem of lack of education, ruling class or half-hearted democracy. Fundamentally, it's poverty and corruption.

Disappointingly superficial article. In the West Keynesian economics doesn't come with a 10-20% kickback for the politicians. That's the real reason behind the Yingluck Government's mad rush to spend trillions of baht of borrowed money. The Thaksin regime doesn't need to buy rural votes anymore; their populist policies are nothing but cynical vote-buying exercises. The reason the so-called 'Bangkok Elite'(by which we really mean the teachers, nurses, doctors and civil servants) are so incensed by this is because they are the ones who pay for it. Therein lies Thailand's big problem: 25 million people or so in the workforce, of which only 10 million are registered to pay income tax, of which only 4 million earn enough to actually pay any. It is their money that is being squandered by this irresponsible government. The rural population of Thailand doesn't pay tax and receives generous (and wildly corrupt) handouts, e.g. the rice scheme, the mismanagement of which incidentally would have brought down any Western government. This disconnect between the rural population and the middle classes will not be resolved by another election. Responsible government would help. The failed Amnesty Bill was a massive political miscalculation by the Yingluck government and for that reason alone she deserves to go...at least until February.

This comment is typical of the myopic mindset of many Bangkok residents, largely but not exclusively Sino Thai.Firstly the suggestion that foreign journalists are incapable of understanding Thailand's politics.Secondly the suggestion that Peua Thai achieved victory by vote buying (disproved as Banyan points out).Thirdly the suggestion that anyone who takes a different view is in the pay of Thaksin.

I´m from a very small village in Northern Thailand. When our village holds an election for a village leader every 3 years, it is the candidate who offers the most money in cash to the village voters that wins. This is what democracy in Thailand is. Corruption is rife and crippling. Our democratic elections will always be so inefficient because of this fundamental flaw in poor democratic nations.
It is a never ending cylce. The poor people in my village will always turn a blind eye and evade the truth because of an extra few hundred baht.
Mr Suthep has no chance because Thaksin has always bankrolled the poor. When this becomes illegal i believe there will be positive change in Thailand.

I think you have rather made my point for me.Incidentally the middle class protestors in Bangkok do seem to share your view that rural people are ignorant and not to be valued.Perhaps that is why Thaksin, with all his faults, came to be the most popular politician in the country.

There's no doubt examples of simplistic cash hand-outs to the poor for the purpose of vote buying. More common would be cash hand-outs to get people out to protest.

However, the reality is much more complex.

1) Cash given to people to come out to protest is less based on the idea of "Pay for protest", but as "funds allowing people the ability to protest" - the red shirts are mostly quite poor, and couldn't necessarily afford to protest extensively without some basic financial assistance.

2) The red-shirt, rural poor aren't the complete dunces they are made out to be. Red shirt policy, put in place by Thaksin and his kind, include subsidized rural healthcare clinics (Prior to these, there was virtually NO healthcare available to rural citizens). Another example: increased funding for rural schools (yes, those rice farms wish for something better for their children, and want them to get an education!).

When Abhisit (leader of the Yellow Shirts) last took power, steps to de-fund, or limit, funding to rural schools and rural clinics kicked in immediately.

Now - I am not defending Thaksin. This isn't only about Thaksin. It is about tens of millions of rural poor in Thailand, who happen to represent a majority of the country's population - and, as such, in a Democratic system, get to take charge...

Corruption is a massive, pervasive problem throughout Thailand - but it is fairly endemic to Thailand in general, NOT to one party or the other.

To suggest the Yellow shirts are any cleaner than the Red shirts, or would have any meaningful impact in reducing corruption, is absolutely naive.

In any event, in any society, it is the very wealthiest people who pay the bulk of the taxes - even in the U.S. In less developed nations like Thailand, with a much more pronounced divide between the life/lifestyles of the middle/upper class and the lower class, this will be even more true - with the exception of VAT, noted above.

To suggest the Bangkok elite should get to rule by fiat because they pay the bulk of taxes is no more justifiable an argument than to suggest the richest 5% of Americans should get to form an oligarchy and take over Washington.

The Thais are very proud of the fact that they had never been colonised, unlike all their neighbours. If they had been (ideally by the British) then they would have had the basic institutions in-place that they are so lacking eg. a rule of law, functioning policing, armed forces that can actually fight, a civil bureaucracy, democratic election laws. The list goes on and on. Instead they have had to make it up as they go along and have made somewhat of a pigs ear of it and the future looks as grim as it has ever been.

Thaksin is close to the Crown Prince and may well have bankrolled his rather lavish lifestyle. Once King Bhumipol dies, it seems quite possible that Thaksin will recieve a royal pardon. Anyone protesting the decision will be liable to fall foul of the lese majesty laws.

Given all this, it is more than likely that the protesters will carry on with pressing Mr Suthep’s idea of setting up what he calls a “people’s council”, to supersede the government.

In other words: A military dictatorship.

The problem is simple - the Yellow shirts, who genereally represent the middle/upper classes, as well as the regional area of Bangkok and Southern Thailand, are an electoral minority. The Red shirts represent the lower classes, as well as the areas of central/Northern Thailand, are a majority.

With democracy, the Red Shirts will always win the elections.

Naturally, the middle/upper classes don't want to cede power to the lower classes.

They can't gain power democractically, so the only option is via some form of dictatorship.